ned.freed@mrochek.com
Tue, 05 Feb 2002 09:25:04 -0800 (PST)
> An open issue in the current VPIM schema document is the identification of
> the character set for text name. Text name differs from the inet person
> name in that is more closely resembles the unstructured text of Caller-ID
> information. At the time we assumed this was an application specific value
> that simply required research to identify the character set in use. In the
> work with Glenn Parson on his caller-ID draft, we have come to the
> conclusion that there are many character sets used, especially in PBX
> systems that have localized character sets for internal display of station
> names.
> I therefore would like to use a more generalized character set. If I
> recall, the IETF generally recommends UTF-8 for new applications.
UTF-8 is the only reasonable choice for such things.
> Is it
> better to use UTF-8 or to use the MIME encoded word for this field?
The biggest problem with encoded words is that they admit the possibility of
using multiple charsets for a single field. You really don't want to go there.
> The
> caller-ID draft Glenn is revising uses the encoded word (I think) since it
> is an RFC2822 header field and can't use UTF-8.
Doesn't necessarily follow. Conversion from UTF-8 to an encoded word
is straightforward. Conversion in the other direction is anything but.
Ned
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Feb 05 2002 - 19:28:01 IST